48 replies to this topic

[aquatus1]

Seeker79, on 10 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Your wrong. There is a phenomenon. Many people experience the divine. That experience is a phenomenon.

Wrong where?  I said one has to define the phenomena.  If no phenomena has been defined, there can be no theory.  

If you want to define God as experiencing the divine, you go right ahead, but how exactly are you going go about finding proof of that?  We don't even know if "the divine" exists.

[Ron Jeremy]

aquatus1, on 11 February 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Wrong where?  I said one has to define the phenomena.  If no phenomena has been defined, there can be no theory.  

If you want to define God as experiencing the divine, you go right ahead, but how exactly are you going go about finding proof of that?  We don't even know if "the divine" exists.

Whenever I hear about such comments by people like seeker, I keep reminding myself how complex and fragile human brain is. A brain is capable of generating all the powerful images and sounds and virtual experiences and whatnot, as long as it has a right condition and right amount of chemical imbalance.

For example I know what Ketamine does to the users. Users can experience NDEs.

[Habitat]

Ron Jeremy, on 11 February 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Whenever I hear about such comments by people like seeker, I keep reminding myself how complex and fragile human brain is. A brain is capable of generating all the powerful images and sounds and virtual experiences and whatnot, as long as it has a right condition and right amount of chemical imbalance.

For example I know what Ketamine does to the users. Users can experience NDEs.

Why do you need to keep reminding yourself ? If you are so set on the idea that 'transcendant' experience is just a malfunction of the brain induced by some pathology or hallucinogen, it is a done deal and you have no need to dwell further on the 'problem', because you have solved it already. Or maybe you really aren't so sure. I have found this site awash with such attitudes, to me it betrays underlying, unsettling doubts, needing to be held at bay by strident argumentation, lest they undermine the Apollonian outlook that holding sway. The real atheists just don't enter the discussion, IMO.

[Mr Walker]

If god is a human construct then of course he exists. We created him.   Thus no one can truthfully argue that god does not demonstrably exist because this form of god does exist, and has real consequences. Science is reaching the abilty to be able to read our minds and identify thoughtsm symbolic atachmentsm etc. Thus science will verify the existence of god as a real physicla entity inside human minds just as love is a real physical biological entity, existing physically in the neurons and synapses of our minds.

If god is a physical independent  entity, then his existence is provable and demonstrable, even if that is yet beyond our science to do so.  (Just as the existence of atoms or blood cells once was .)
So yes; either the existence of god is already proven, or else it can be proven, depending on your conception of god.

[Copen]

and then, on 10 February 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Alan the Creator Himself inspired the words of Hebrews 11:6

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him"

If His existence can be proven empirically then who would need faith?  Long before the Lord Jesus came to us Abraham was justified by the Father because he had FAITH.  Not works or wisdom but simply faith enough to follow the commands of God.
I submit to you that as Christians we try to take too much on ourselves when we labor at convincing others through "proofs" that God is real.
I believe we should be able to defend our faith by citing relevant scripture but beyond that it is impossible to change a mind or heart that is not being called by God.  JMO

The ability to have faith, (belief), is a gift from God. (Eph. 2:8) Without this God-given gift no one can please God.

I don't believe you can prove God. Many times preachers will say you can see God in nature and you are therefore without excuse. I used to look at nature and try to see God. I could see the beauty, mystery, strength, complexity, etc. but I could never see God. I could not look at God in nature and tell if He was One or One Hundred in the Godhead. Then one day I realized the Bible does not say we can see God in nature. It says we can see the Godhead in Creation. Going back to the Creation on Day Six we see man being made in the image of God with a spirit, soul (mind, and body. That is the only place we can see the God in Creation which shows the Godhead is Triune.

Course, the newer "more accurate" translations knew the Godhead couldn't be seen in nature --- so they changed the translation to suit themselves and left the Godhead off. They just say you can see the personal attributes of God in nature. WRONG.

Children are so gullible. They believe everything they are told. But you can not find God. He has to make the first call. "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ... I speak not of you all (I know whom I have chosen)..He calleth His own sheep by name...No man can come unto me, except it were given onto him of my Father... Of all which the Father hath given I have lost nothing...I pray for them, (I pray not for the world), but for them whom thou has given me..

The only proof of God is in a personal experience when God calls you. A personal experience can be proof to no one except the person when experienced God which will then open daily communication.
God bless you all

[_Only]

Copen, on 11 February 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

The only proof of God is in a personal experience when God calls you. A personal experience can be proof to no one except the person when experienced God which will then open daily communication.
God bless you all

And personal experiences can often fool us; our brains. But there's no way for anyone to be able to prove that to someone.

[Seeker79]

Orcseeker, on 10 February 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

I don't think any logic of ours can suggest it to be probable at all.

Why?

[Seeker79]

aquatus1, on 11 February 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Wrong where?  I said one has to define the phenomena.  If no phenomena has been defined, there can be no theory.  

If you want to define God as experiencing the divine, you go right ahead, but how exactly are you going go about finding proof of that?  We don't even know if "the divine" exists.

We have proof. Scientists have devised god helmets. The experience exists just as much as the
Experience of chocolate. No doubt. It's the nature of the experience that is ambiguous.

We wouldn't say chocolate isn't real just because someone devised a helmet that activated that part of the brain would we?

Edited by Seeker79, 11 February 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[aquatus1]

Seeker79, on 11 February 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

We have proof.

Proof of what?  How can you prove something without defining what you are proving?

Quote

Scientists have devised god helmets. The experience exists just as much as the
Experience of chocolate. No doubt. It's the nature of the experience that is ambiguous.

Then it is somewhat pointless to refer to the experience of the divine as a the "God" phenomena, isn't it?

Again, prior to finding proof of "God", we need to define what "God" is.  If we cannot come up with a definition, we will never be able to come up with any sort of proof.

Quote

We wouldn't say chocolate isn't real just because someone devised a helmet that activated that part of the brain would we?

The reality of chocolate (while arguably divine) is not based on the human experience of it.  There is harder empirical evidence supporting the existence of a specifically defined compound based on cacao, creme, and sugar.

[AA Institute]

ParanormallyJustARedNeck, on 10 February 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

I'd like to think that one day science and God can be reconciled but I don't know that it's actually possible. I too believe in a God but I have a different view on it than most. I speculate that instead of a divine being who sits back and tinkers with the universe and all of creation and works towards an outcome and purpose known only to divinty's self that all of creation actually composes and makes up God,like single living cells combine to make up a larger living entity, that the laws of physics and nature exist within God or at least the 'mind' of God. Therefore I'm not sure that it's proveable simply becuase we have no mechanism for observing anything outside the realm of our own dimensions.
There is a book called "The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch, great book for anyone, like myself who believes in science and God.

Good post  

[Seeker79]

aquatus1, on 11 February 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Proof of what?  How can you prove something without defining what you are proving?



Then it is somewhat pointless to refer to the experience of the divine as a the "God" phenomena, isn't it?

Again, prior to finding proof of "God", we need to define what "God" is.  If we cannot come up with a definition, we will never be able to come up with any sort of proof.



The reality of chocolate (while arguably divine) is not based on the human experience of it.  There is harder empirical evidence supporting the existence of a specifically defined compound based on cacao, creme, and sugar.

Your not reading what im saying. The EXPERIENCE of chocolate is real. So is a divine EXPERIENCE. It's very real and provable. Now the nature if it is debatable. Just as you would say the experience of chocolate is caused by sugar, taste buds, and the chemical make up of chocolate, you would now be searching for the source of divine experiences. as of yet scientists say, it'd because the brain is doing this and that. Duuuuu. We know the brain does things when it's experiencing something ( just like it does with chocolate)... But why?

I find often that many materialists completely ignore the data that divine experiences exist, so they can continue to play the wishful thinking card without really understanding the subject material. The fact of the matter is that people really do experience spiritual material during OBEs, NDEs, shamanic, and other states.

We should not be arguing weather spiritual experiences exist. We should be delving into the nature of  those experiences without bias or assumption. We should be atempting to discover the chocolate to define it. Unfortunately most people arguing against the existence of a spiritual world are still stuck at surface level thinking and are busy attacking literal religous dogma. So it goes round and round with no real progress. "natural selection says,,,Bla Bla Bla.,, the bible/koran/bagavagita etc says Bla Bla Bla" it's rediculouse. Your not even talking in the same subject. One is science the other is philosophy.

the experience of chocolate is a real experience, spiritual experiences are just as real... We just don't know why? Quite obviously we font yet have the chocolate defined.

You cannot define something you are trying to discover. That would mean that you have already discovered it and bias your inquary.

Edited by Seeker79, 11 February 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[karmakazi]

Seeker79, on 11 February 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Your not reading what im saying. The EXPERIENCE of chocolate is real. So is a divine EXPERIENCE. It's very real and provable. Now the nature if it is debatable. Just as you would say the experience of chocolate is caused by sugar, taste buds, and the chemical make up of chocolate, you would now be searching for the source of divine experiences. as of yet scientists say, it'd because the brain is doing this and that. Duuuuu. We know the brain does things when it's experiencing something ( just like it does with chocolate)... But why?

Another way of explaining it is this:

When a person has a spiritual experience and a specific area of the brain shows more electrical activity, the only thing proved is: "that area of the brain relates to that experience in some way".

It is an assumption that the activity shown in the brain is the cause of the experience, but we can neither prove nor disprove an intangible element behind the experience because it is simply not an ability that we have.

It never ceases to amaze me that people assume the intangible can't be real because we can't currently measure it.  Our history is full of incorrect assumptions and assertions of fact which were based on the information available at the time and were incorrect because the information available was limited.  Are we really assuming we have reached our peak of being able to test and evaluate phenomena?

[Orcseeker]

Seeker79, on 11 February 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

Why?

Give me an example of our logic that can

[Seeker79]

Ron Jeremy, on 11 February 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Whenever I hear about such comments by people like seeker, I keep reminding myself how complex and fragile human brain is. A brain is capable of generating all the powerful images and sounds and virtual experiences and whatnot, as long as it has a right condition and right amount of chemical imbalance.

For example I know what Ketamine does to the users. Users can experience NDEs.

That's me an imbalanced drug user

[Seeker79]

karmakazi, on 11 February 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Another way of explaining it is this:

When a person has a spiritual experience and a specific area of the brain shows more electrical activity, the only thing proved is: "that area of the brain relates to that experience in some way".

It is an assumption that the activity shown in the brain is the cause of the experience, but we can neither prove nor disprove an intangible element behind the experience because it is simply not an ability that we have.

It never ceases to amaze me that people assume the intangible can't be real because we can't currently measure it.  Our history is full of incorrect assumptions and assertions of fact which were based on the information available at the time and were incorrect because the information available was limited.  Are we really assuming we have reached our peak of being able to test and evaluate phenomena?

You are dead on. Only a few people ever realize the reality of that.